User talk:Calton/Archive19

723:- as thousands of people probably have. I have also read the very unflattering material available about you on the Encyclopedia Dramatica and numerous other sites. Whether you would like to admit it or not, you have made yourself NOTORIOUS all over the Internet for harassing people. And as for Erhenfel's or anyone else having an "obsession" with you, I would suggest the reverse is more likely the case. Famous people are seldom "obsessed" with unknown people. If you actually read the Cyberstalking article instead of just blindly reverting it, you might learn a thing or two. No one is "stalking" you. You are not the "victim". The people you have libeled and harrassed are the victims. MegaMom (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 926:, who started editing in March 2007, edited completely different articles, and then 7 months later clashed with you, and brought up Wyatt Ehrenfels' web site in a report against you. You see this as proof that MegaMom and Wyatt Ehrenfels are one and the same, which is a self-centered world view. To me this seems like a user whom you've irked, who Googled you, found the stalking charges against you on the web, and posted them. I don't know which one of us is right, but until you go to the trouble of actually trying to establish that this is a case of sock puppets, by filing an appropriate report, you cannot go around tarnishing the names of editors in good standing. 331: 1934:, a San Francisco newspaper. On Feb 5 I got a note from Mary Spicuzza saying, “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up -- my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article.” Her original note on Jan 23 said, “I'm working on an article about Knowledge and I'd love to speak with you.” On Jan 31 she wanted “to get your perspective on Knowledge -- especially on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.” But now her article is about me. Please check 1721: 1766: 1497:

just one piece of evidence of this. Since, however, Tai Streets started editing after Wyatt Ehrenfels started editing then the correct approach is to tag Tai Streets as a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels, and tag Wyatt Ehrenfels as having abused one or more sock puppet accounts. Tagging Wyatt Ehrenfels as a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels and citing an edit by Tai Streets as an example is simply incorrect.

1503:

sockpuppet of Wyatt or she is not. You think she is, I don't. I could describe your rationalisations as "ludicrous", but don't, as you are entitled to your view and for it not to be denigrated by others. What you're not allowed to do, however, is to continue calling her a sockpuppet without being prepared to back up your accusations by completing the very quick, very easy process at

1252:

sockpuppet with which to continue his campaign, do you really think he would bother building up a history of sensible editing to unrelated articles for nine months before relaunching his campaign? Personally I'd think it unlikely - particularly given the nature of the articles concerned, as I said in my earlier message to MegaMom.

1220: 1844:

While I appreciate ""Popular Culture" sections -- especially loosely connected, unsourced, and minor list items saying, essentially, "I saw this bit flash by on TV last night" -- are deprecated on Knowledge. So I'm deleteing this loosely connected, unsourced, and minor list items saying, essentially,

1824:

for speedy deletion. Please note this page was not designed to incite controversy, but merely host arguments and evidence as to why this deserves a WP entry. Please note that "stop the drama" is not an argument and does not cite WP policy. However, "ArbCom does NOT decide policy" IS policy. In short,

1798:

When you run into a userpage which looks like an article or an advertisement, it's probably a good idea to check if there are any non-free images in it. Such images are allowed, under some circumstances, in the article namespace, but never anywhere else. If such an image is in the userpage, feel free

1881:

I've been impressed by yours and other users conduct recently, and I'm prepared to offer you an RFA nomination. Your judgement shown at CAT:CSD and UAA is exemplary, and I wish for you to be an administrator to help defeat the backlogs we can get there sometimes! You've shown that you can handle the

1690:

I have undone your edit to the added data I have put into the Mossimo page. While I do understand that I am not allowed to put in links to blogs and opinion sites, the Mossimo design on t-shirts in the Philippines does exist and this controversy is still unresolved among members of the International

1507:

which would establish whether or not you're correct - a process which I see you continue to shy away from. There's no obligation on you to make a check-user request, so long as you continue (as you have been for 18 hours or so) from refraining from accusing her of being a sockpuppet until you do so.

722:

Gee, last I checked PAGE BLANKING and reposting old deleted messages on talk pages was considered vandalism. And it IS a coincidence. Go file a report - I'm not Wyatt and I have no affiliation with him. Go ahead and have me checked out - you are mistaken. Yes, I've seen Erhenfel's Cyberstalking Site

1691:

Order of DeMolay in this country. When Mossimo reacts to this controversy I put in verifiable sources of the company's reaction as well. There has been no reactions whatsoever from Mossimo as of yet, either to deny their having made such a design or that they have recalled the said t-shirt product.

1496:

Yes, I've read the link. In fact, I read the link before I posted my message to you. Apparently, however, you didn't read my message before posting your message to me, as if you had done you would have seen that I've never argued that Wyatt Ehrenfels is not Tai Streets. The link which you cited is

1481:

I have blanked the above page, removing your sockpuppet tag. The "evidence" you provide is an edit by Tai Streets - that would justify putting a tag on Tai Streets' page stating that it he a suspected sock puppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels, but does not justify putting a tag on Wyatt Ehrenfels stating that

913:

The proof I'm looking for is some sort of report detailing the evidence of sock-puppetry: cases where the same IP address was used by the two different aliases, cases where one alias referred to the other as himself, or, at a minimum, a pattern of the two editors making the same edits on the same

1255:

Having seen, and been on the receiving end, of your particular style of communication, and having seen the voracious speed and single-mindedness with which you perform your chosen tasks on Knowledge, I think it entirely more likely that you've crossed paths with her son and (assuming good faith)

659:

As far as I'm concerned, I follow Knowledge content and usage rules consistently, while you -- and probably also using a smattering of TOR nodes and anonymous IPs -- to blindly revert another editor's edits, are not. Please don't insult my intelligence with this talk of following rules while you

1268:

At the end of the day, however, you need to sh*t or get off the pot. Accuse her of being a sockpuppet, if you like, but there are now multiple editors telling you that they can see no evidence of sockpuppetry from her contributions. If you accuse her again, and still remain unprepared to go to

638:

If you sincerely believe that all the editors reverting your talk page vandalism are sock puppets of Wyatt Ehrfrenels, I suggest you file a formal complaint. A simple IP check will surely clear me. Rather than playing “ net cop” for Knowledge’s user pages, you may wish to dedicate your time to

1251:

Thank you for your message. I had read the contributions of Wyatt, Tai Streets and the two IP's prior to forming my view, and I agree with your summary of Wyatt's campaign under those identities on the various subject matters of cyberstalking, privacy, and the like. Were he to create another

1994:

on me. I will be curious to see whether Boodles disappears with the other one -- maybe they originate from the same IP? Or is that too much to hope for? I think these people will pursue me to the end of the earth (which is all right by me, as I hear it's very pretty out there). Thanks again!

1546:

If I recall correctly the deleted material (I only flagged it for db-author, as I'm not an admin) wasn't to do with your identity, but MegaMom had grasped the wrong end of a stick and was shaking it furiously by confusing the edit history of the user page with the account history of the user

1502:

If you think that the phrase "shit or get off the pot" is hostile, then I happily apologise for it. It summed up my thoughts at the time quite neatly, and they remain as above. Since you don't seem to understand my purpose in this, let me repeat it for you one more time. Either MegaMom is a

887:

against this poor author you have apparently invested so much time and energy into harrassing. Again, I am NOT Wyatt, I do not know Wyatt and have no connection with him, what-so-ever. I had never even heard of Wyatt until I began researching your cyberstalking activities. Knowledge is an

891:

Frankly, I think your destructive conduct is out of control and you should be permanently blocked from participating in this project. The harm you do, far outweighs any good. Go, right ahead and file a report. You are mistaken, which makes your commentary all the more UNCIVIL.

1260:

is therefore not surprising - I agree with Canadian Monkey's comments above on this. That you conclude from her doing so that she is Wyatt is one stretch too far, in my view. After all - I contributed to that ANI myself. Would you like to slap a Wyatt sockpuppet tag on

1148:, where this website by one June Maxam was a part of the "Terri Schiavo is being murdered" faction and campaign.* Since then, I've been removing tlinks to there wherever I find them. Given that you already have other sources, what's the point of fighting for this one? 703:- Yeah, your sudden appearance echoing his beliefs, obsession with me, prose style, and intimate knowledge thereof while jumping in with false accusations concerning me and blind stalking of my edits is SO coincidental. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2058:

OK, enough of your insulting drivel. A) I'm not their sock puppet, so an APOLOGY, not insults is in order, and B) I hadn't "allied" myself with anybody; I was trying to balance the hostile, disruptive and guideline flaunting edits of an editor with a

1529:, which doesn't constitute evidence that User:172.150.92.250 is a sockpuppet - I am sure they may have been edits in the past which are now deleted, but given that IP address are not static, it would be inappropriate to leave the tag on that page. 2077:

article]], and deletes other editors talk page comments that throw him in an unfavorable light. I can "Diff" all of this. So if you're not going to give me an apology and my donut, then go away and come back when you learn how to play nicely.

1152:*Since I'm NOT trawling through the megabytes of material in the archives, I'll be lazy and point to some external results pulled up through Google -- most of which I wasn't actually familiar with until now, but certainly strengthens my case. 1964: 118:. The majority of editors on the article clearly disagree with your POV. There is a consensus and I suggest that you respect the wishes of the majority. Your repeated reverts to this list are disruptive and inappropriate. Please, stop. 1929:

that you and I thought didn’t belong, and who furthermore repeatedly vandalized the Ralph Nader article. It seems Jeanne Marie thinks we bullied her, and now her niece or sister, Mary Spicuzza, is writing an article about me for

480:

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, all of your points are based on a misunderstanding about which WP rule applies here. The issue here is external links, not sources being used as a reference. The latter are required to be

781:

until (s)he posted on my Talk page, so I don't know if you are right or wrong. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, post it in the appropriate wikipedia page. It is unacceptable to simply go around tossing accusations.

496:

Re. your point #4, these reprints aren't available anywhere else online, as far as I was able to determine. Luckily, the WP rules are quite clear-cut on this matter, and they make it clear that the current links are

290:

Thanks for telling me about the policies regarding non-free images. I have taken a look at the pages you provided and was wondering if you could replace the images you deleted with images which can be used. Thanks.

199:

Hey, I put some effort into this page; in its current condition, it's not even close to speediable, even as a G4. You're welcome to take it to AfD, but I think we're all over the hump of notability at this point.

1821: 1959: 1310:

As you'll see from her userpage, her providing the username of her son would go some way to clearing this up relatively quickly. I have asked her to provide me with that information - off-wiki if preferred.

667:

Again, I am not Wyatt, nor have I edited under any TOR nodes or IP's other than the one attached to my account. You're behavior is uncivil and inappropriate. MegaMom (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1333: 631:, particularly when used to obfiscate the fact that you have been blanking other users’ pages, accusing them of being “non-editors” and reposting old deleted messages on other users' pages. 2092: 539:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

2021: 851:

I didn't say she isn't. I didn't say you shouldn't say she is - I said there's a right way to do things like that. If you think she passes the duck test, feel free to file a report at

238: 1508:

This would appear to be the makings of an uneasy truce between you and her...long may it continue. And not just because half the pages you war with her on have been fully protected.

697:

And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual meaning of vandalism before accusing someone of it. Say, doesn't that fall under the civility guidelines you claim to uphold?

1941:

Furthermore, this Mary Spicuzza has been sending queries to editors who submit to the Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's Presidential Campaigns articles asking for interviews. See her

1257: 40: 2017: 1921:

What I was going to tell you is, you may not remember, as it’s water under the bridge, but some time ago you and I had a run in with Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, the notorious user

1620: 1793: 1547:

concerned. I thought deletion was, in all the circumstances, the more sensible option as you two had enough to argue about without a misapprehension adding fuel to the fire.

1300:

And I think it best not to pull things straight out of your hat, especially given the ironclad standards you're demanding of me regarding the recycled nonsense generated by

2053: 735: 520: 151:

I've left a sternly-worded warning on his talk page not to follow your contributions; I also expect you to stay clear of him, and to adhere to WP:CIV in the future.

1525:, there are no undeleted contributions remaining, so it's a bit pointless putting the sockpuppet tag on their userpage - the current tag shows a link to an edit by 756:. Feel free to ad any other users who you suspect are also sockpuppets of Wyatt. Until filing such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet of Wyatt. 1183:

None of these are reliable sources for, say, writing an article about June Maxam, but do show the unreliability of "North Country Gazette" as a bonafide source. --

935: 2073:

with. An editor who lies about my edit history, makes paranoid accusations, distorts edit history discussions, insists that his POV trumps reliable sourcing (see

1898:

I apologise, but I am withdrawing this offer per a recent ANI incident regarding the manner in which you respond to other editors. Apologies once again. Regards,

1196:

Yikes! Thanks for this information! Who would have thought! It really looks legitimate by looking, but the news at the badcops website is enough for me. Thanks!--

559: 2087: 1810: 1294:

Thank you for the highlighting. Please note that, given we're talking about sockpuppetry, the nature, rather than the number, of the edits carry weight with me.

261: 1475: 919: 774: 749: 763: 271:

Hey there, I will just like to tell you that I did not create the user name ITunes69. It might have been someone else. And can please stop blaming me for it.

1522: 1955:

As you know, Boodlesthecat and 76.87.47.110 are obsessed with me, but did you know they have taken me to court in no less than three different Wiki venues:

1019: 527: 239: 1560:

As I said to her, Knowledge's a pretty big place, and hopefully it's big enough for both of you to co-exist without having to bump into each other again.

1561: 1530: 1509: 1487: 1357: 1343: 1278: 531:. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at 305: 1990:

Thanks amigo! I'm marking my calendar for six months from now when the beast will again be let out of the cage. Meantime, Boodlesthecat has initiated a

395:

to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add

1695: 682:

or I will most certainly be bringing this matter up the chain of command. Consider that a friendly warning. MegaMom (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

379:. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the 2000: 1980: 1975:

I know I’m an SOB, but do I really deserve this merely for editing Ralph Nader articles? You’re a stand up guy and I’m glad I have you for a friend.

272: 1369: 1396: 791: 320: 1778:

and wanted to see if you would like to hop on our bandwagon and help us clean up some of this new WikiProject's articles. Thanks for your time.

1564: 1533: 1512: 1346: 1281: 1085: 106: 101: 2113: 838: 127: 63: 1444: 1420: 2027: 1965:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, Talk page violations, harassment, despite warnings, sock puppeteering, User:Griot

1899: 1883: 1637: 1614: 458:

If those reprints are, in fact, reliable, link directly to them or cite them. If you can't, then they weren't reliable sources to begin with.

945:

I thought you should know that a user who was making personal comments about you a few months ago has turned out to be a sock of Primetime.

543: 2094: 1996: 1976: 1246: 901: 586: 535:

carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at

862: 232: 1991: 509: 471: 58: 1969: 1036: 1907: 1590: 1288:

Since you missed it, I'll highlight it above. Look for the boldface. Note: Arguments from Incredulity don't carry much weight with me.

1205: 1138: 26: 627:

and in several other places. I told you very clearly some weeks back that I am not Wyatt, nor do I have any affiliation with Wyatt .

2004: 1465:

was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--

1462: 1834: 2048: 1490: 1118: 966: 752:. It's possible, however, that I'm wrong. If you believe that there is reasonable evidence linking them, please file a report at 160: 542:

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

1703: 1661: 1609: 1098: 1012: 888:

encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service, for people like you to use as a means of publicly smearing people you don't like.

536: 384: 69: 1788: 1191: 1156: 648: 420: 34: 1758: 1799:

to remove it, with an appropriate message for the user. If the image isn't anywhere else, then please tag it with {{subst:

1054: 1583:

does, then it shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio - instead, the copyvio sections should be removed. For your information,

1574: 1110: 1030: 547: 280: 443: 1862: 1409:

Please also be aware that I'm not reading your detailed evidence linking these users. Some admins, but not me, look at

179: 2039:

So you've completed your investigation and have concluded I've been falsely accused. Looking forward to those donuts.

1882:

buttons you've got already, and I think you're ready for the 'tools'. If you wish to decline that's fine. :) Regards,

300: 209: 1918:

Old pal, I was getting set to write you a note and I see you’re already way ahead of the curve. Thank you very much!

1089: 1003: 187: 1857:

strike me as deprecating and uncivil, especially in the sight of good faith edits. Please make an effort to remain

1815: 960: 635:

Instead of hurling false allegations of sock puppetry at other editors, why not try abiding by Knowledge’s rules?

352: 880: 146: 1960:

Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ralph Nader articles editor with serious personal grudge against Nader

1891: 1657: 1600:

Thank you for pointing out the procedure. I have recreated the article with the minimum info for a stub. Cheers.

1356:

is Wyatt is dubious. There's no need for you to comment on this any further on my talk page, and I hope you take

1124: 654:

Instead of hurling false allegations of sock puppetry at other editors, why not try abiding by Knowledge’s rules?

571: 430:

Hi -- Some of the links you've been removing are to reviews by published authors and recognized authorities. See

388: 356: 1238: 1161: 1870: 1745: 1736: 1680: 620: 616: 612: 1984: 600: 1078: 594: 1521:

I have amended the tag slightly, and hope that it achieves what you we both think it should achieve. As for

1469: 1322:"Something more reality-based" is an interesting choice of words for someone persistently refusing to go to 889: 804:

repeating Wyatt's original nutty paranoia and adding some bizarre claims about how I mistreated "her" child.

1904: 1888: 1595: 1474: 1042: 624: 608: 604: 306: 1336:. There were "multiple editors" noting the bizarre nature of "her" claims, but those don't count, I guess. 996: 2034: 1685: 1413:

to try and determine which reports are correct and which aren't. It's them you need to convince, not me.

1172: 1072: 940: 660:

self-servingly pick and choose which ones you follow, Wyatt. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

348: 325: 984: 431: 1653: 532: 482: 132: 1922: 1352:

Three different editors, one of them an administrator, have already told you that your assertion that

814: 796:

What "proof" are you looking for, fingerprints and DNA? It's called "circumstantial evidence"; namely

1720: 1708: 1365: 931: 787: 360: 599:

Please, stop accusing myself and other editors of being sock puppets of Wyatt Ehrfrenels as you did

266: 171: 1201: 1134: 990: 555: 486: 376: 156: 1316:

You first. Care to back up that weasel-worded "entirely more likely" with something reality-based?

1177: 830:, and I will continue to treat this character like the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet he/she is. -- 769:

I came here to comment on the note you left on my Talk page, saying pretty much the same thing as

375:

notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on

87:

Knowledge doesn't mean that no one will come looking for it by other means. For your information,

2109: 2083: 2044: 1952:

I wanted to send you a heads up to let you know that you may be in Mary Spicuzza’s article, too.

1114: 1024: 972: 285: 115: 108: 1273:

to seek the evidence required, then I will request that you be blocked for continuing to breach

639:

improving ARTICLES. I’m sure there are more positive contributions you could make to Knowledge.

489:. As you can see from the link I inserted above, the links are acceptable and appropriate under 1926: 1866: 1483: 1256:

without knowing that they were a minor, come across somewhat harshly. Her popping up at WP:ANI

1048: 978: 922:- who was active for all of 2 weeks more than 2 years ago, and edited 4 articles. Then we have 425: 183: 1935: 1699: 1095: 1009: 192: 1748:, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! 1807: 1605: 1587: 1580: 1441: 1417: 1393: 1361: 1106: 954: 927: 859: 783: 760: 276: 98: 91: 55: 8: 1854: 1830: 1526: 1197: 1130: 551: 505: 439: 416: 408: 392: 368: 351:

process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Knowledge's

344: 152: 2105: 2079: 2040: 1875: 1145: 1060: 400: 228: 205: 678:

And what I have reverted is called VANDALISM. I suggest you familiarize yourself with

2101: 1731: 1666: 1645: 1630: 1385:. However, if you continue to make accusations off that page, you may be blocked for 1235: 897: 644: 123: 1938:

to read her notes to me. I wonder if her editor knows what her ulterior motive is.

1913: 1850: 1839: 1579:

If an article has enough non-copyvio information to survive other CSD criteria, as

1210: 1188: 1092: 1006: 884: 835: 468: 296: 165: 17: 1858: 1804: 1779: 1749: 1676: 1601: 1584: 1438: 1414: 1390: 1386: 1274: 1166: 856: 770: 757: 254: 220: 216: 137:...from such an experienced and intelligent contributor who has been reminded of 95: 88: 52: 1826: 1825:

leave this alone, or at least read the page you are tagging before you tag it.

1800: 1710: 1504: 1456: 1323: 1270: 915: 827: 801: 679: 501: 435: 412: 380: 330: 855:. Until you file such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet. 2074: 1946: 1410: 1382: 852: 753: 633:

All anyone has done is reverted your vandalism and harassment of other users.

582: 339: 224: 201: 193: 175: 142: 138: 77: 1626: 1378: 1353: 1301: 923: 893: 797: 778: 745: 737: 640: 490: 314: 119: 2010: 312:

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome.

1846: 1184: 831: 464: 292: 1942: 1219: 223:, as do the connections with several other major bands and the touring. 1775: 1672: 1466: 248: 1765: 1234:

For continued vigilance against spammers, both current and ancient. ˉˉ

485:, while the former are required to meet the requirements listed under 1326:

and get, er, something more reality-based to support his accusations.

914:

articles. None of this exists, so, no, I don't think this passes the

2104:. I think that qualifies for TWO apologies and TWO boxes of donuts. 1741: 1169:

Scroll past all the photos at the top of the page to get the posts.

578: 1949:

by any other name! It’s all very weird -- even by Wiki standards!

2060: 1129:

Okay, I give up! What on the page informs you that it's a blog?--

245:

This is just a courtesy note to advise you of the above thread.

1332:

Try reading above: Focus especially on the recycled nonsense

1970:

User talk:Moonriddengirl#Help--sock critters and disruptions

1740:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of 1342:

I have made my position clear, I believe. Do what you will.

800:'s sudden unsolicited appearance in an unrelated dispute on 383:, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the 455:

Reprinting of reliable sources from elsewhere isn't either.

449:

Blog links, with rare exceptions, are not reliable sources.

1482:

he is a suspected sock puppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels. Perhaps

748:'s edits, and she doesn't look to me like a sockpuppet of 363:). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the 240:

Knowledge:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:Calton

1782: 1752: 1103:

Please stop vandalizing my user page, thank you -- Lir.

948: 813:

For some nutty paranoid goodness so you can compare, see

355:, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " 1066: 918:, or even comes close to it. All I see is one editor - 629:

Unfounded allegations such as these are less than civil

47:

The page looks like a definition, not an advertizement.

1945:

to find out what I mean. The attack of the Spicuzzas!

1927:

blatantly self-promoting article about herself on Wiki

500:

If you have any further response, you can do so here.

1794:

Userpages which seem to be articles or advertisements

2016:

Yah know you could tell me to take it off yah know.

2054:

You owe me an apology, but you insult me instead :(

1845:"I saw this bit flash by on TV last night" item. -- 546:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 521:

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Well logo.gif

1803:}}, and it will probably be deleted a week later. 1744:. If you would like to participate, you can visit 452:Because I said so" is not one of those exceptions. 347:, suggesting that it be deleted according to the 145:so many times. Stop calling Neutralhomer names ( 1144:Nothing. I'm going by a long-ago discussion on 1086:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime 879:Yes, please, file a report and stop leaving me 76:"redirect no longer needed" not covered by any 1822:User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica 1377:Feel free to file a formal complaint against 1992:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Griot 1853:02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)" as posted to 307:Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name 68:I've declined the speedy tag you placed on 39:I've declined the speedy tag you placed on 1734:article, I thought I'd let you know about 1217: 826:As far as I'm concerned, this passes the 1277:. I suspect I'd find myself in a queue. 1167:Some blog calling itself "Bad Cop News" 343:template has been added to the article 174:edit, please allow me to remind you of 14: 1730:As a current or past contributor to a 1461:Well, not this time anyway it seems... 1437:Please read my reply on my talk page. 883:, rife with defamatory commentary and 773:, who beat me to it. I don't know who 537:Knowledge:Fair use rationale guideline 178:. Hopefully no offense will be taken. 70:List of past Magic Kingdom attractions 64:List of past Magic Kingdom attractions 1650:Don't mess with my user space again. 1627:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1615:Re: University of Pittsburgh accounts 1247:The on-going saga of Wyatt Ehrenfels 2065:the very subject he's editing that 1084:and some others are the same user. 23: 1719: 432:WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided 329: 24: 2124: 1228:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 1002:was found in a checkuser search. 114:Please, stop edit warring on the 1764: 1715: 1463:my effort to regain my adminship 1218: 1162:"Dakota Voice", a pro-life blog 548:media copyright questions page 29:post at the bottom of the page 13: 1: 391:, where it may be deleted if 41:User:Magnus Blaze (rock band) 35:User:Magnus Blaze (rock band) 2114:21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 2088:19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 2049:13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 2005:15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 1985:18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1908:17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 1892:17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1871:06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1835:15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1811:08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1789:04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1759:04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1704:22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1681:03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1662:03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1638:17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 1610:15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1591:15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1565:13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1534:21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1513:12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1491:08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1470:07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1445:08:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1421:06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1397:06:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1370:18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1347:17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1282:17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1239:21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1206:17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 1192:13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 1139:19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1119:15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1099:08:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1013:08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 936:16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 902:02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 863:05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 839:17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 815:this bizarre page of Wyatt's 792:01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 764:13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 649:06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 587:08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 560:05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 544:criteria for speedy deletion 510:22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 472:21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 444:18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 421:02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 94:15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 7: 1575:Speedy deletion of copyvios 1486:would be more appropriate? 361:Knowledge's deletion policy 321:01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 301:23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 281:22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 262:16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 233:15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 210:15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 188:15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 161:00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 128:05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 102:15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 59:15:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 10: 2129: 1861:in the future. Thank you, 533:Knowledge:Non-free content 1224: 777:is, and had not heard of 381:proposed deletion process 2097:'s sock puppet confirmed 1816:Speedy delete on ED page 385:speedy deletion criteria 2018:A LITTLE PIECE OF DEATH 1724:NASA Spirit Rover Model 1671:Rolled some back here. 1125:The Nixzmary Brown Page 116:List of fictional ducks 109:List of fictional ducks 2062:serious grudge against 1725: 1017:There's a chance that 572:non-free use rationale 353:criteria for inclusion 334: 51:For your information, 1723: 1654:Anonymousfishinthesea 1360:'s warning to heart. 744:I've looked a bit at 701:Again, I am not Wyatt 595:Your Lack of Civility 525:Thanks for uploading 389:Articles for Deletion 387:or it can be sent to 357:What Knowledge is not 333: 1774:I saw your edits on 1737:WikiProject Robotics 1596:Little Angel Theatre 1581:Little Angel Theatre 1476:User:Wyatt Ehrenfels 215:The second album on 148:); it doesn't help. 2035:Krispy Kreme please 1855:Equal pay for women 1686:DeMolay vs. Mossimo 1527:User:67.129.121.254 1523:User:172.150.92.250 941:Sock puppet theatre 740:being a sock-puppet 736:Your accusation of 528:Image:Well logo.gif 483:WP:Reliable sources 434:, item #12. Thanks 409:Timothy Paul Baymon 345:Timothy Paul Baymon 326:Timothy Paul Baymon 1943:Contributions page 1726: 1146:Talk:Terri Schiavo 335: 133:I expect better... 83:No incoming links 1772: 1771: 1244: 1243: 1173:Christian website 1121: 1109:comment added by 487:WP:External Links 349:proposed deletion 340:proposed deletion 260: 72:. The reason is: 43:. The reason is: 2120: 2011:Please read this 1902: 1886: 1784: 1783:- Jameson L. Tai 1768: 1754: 1753:- Jameson L. Tai 1746:the project page 1716: 1635: 1633: 1222: 1215: 1214: 1178:Boing Boing post 1104: 1083: 1082: 1037:deleted contribs 1001: 1000: 967:deleted contribs 951: 885:personal attacks 881:uncivil messages 576: 570: 406: 405: 399: 374: 373: 367: 317: 259: 257: 246: 107:Edit Warring on 27:Start below and 18:User talk:Calton 2128: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2099: 2056: 2037: 2013: 1916: 1900: 1884: 1878: 1842: 1818: 1796: 1714: 1688: 1669: 1648: 1636: 1631: 1625: 1617: 1598: 1577: 1479: 1459: 1362:Canadian Monkey 1249: 1213: 1127: 1022: 1018: 952: 947: 946: 943: 928:Canadian Monkey 920:Wyatt Ehrenfels 784:Canadian Monkey 775:Wyatt Ehrenfels 750:Wyatt Ehrenfels 742: 597: 574: 568: 523: 428: 403: 397: 396: 371: 365: 364: 328: 315: 310: 288: 286:Fair use images 269: 255: 247: 243: 217:Victory Records 197: 168: 135: 112: 66: 37: 32: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2126: 2098: 2091: 2055: 2052: 2036: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1962: 1923:76.166.123.129 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1877: 1874: 1841: 1838: 1817: 1814: 1795: 1792: 1770: 1769: 1762: 1727: 1713: 1707: 1687: 1684: 1668: 1665: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1624: 1616: 1613: 1597: 1594: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1516: 1515: 1499: 1498: 1478: 1473: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1350: 1349: 1339: 1338: 1328: 1327: 1319: 1318: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1231: 1230: 1225: 1223: 1212: 1209: 1198:MurderWatcher1 1181: 1180: 1175: 1170: 1164: 1159: 1150: 1149: 1131:MurderWatcher1 1126: 1123: 942: 939: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 844: 843: 842: 841: 821: 820: 819: 818: 808: 807: 806: 805: 741: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 698: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 671: 670: 669: 668: 662: 661: 656: 655: 596: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 552:BetacommandBot 522: 519: 517: 515: 514: 513: 512: 498: 494: 475: 474: 460: 459: 456: 453: 450: 427: 426:blogspot links 424: 407:to the top of 327: 324: 309: 304: 287: 284: 268: 267:I didn't do it 265: 242: 237: 236: 235: 196: 191: 167: 164: 153:TenOfAllTrades 134: 131: 111: 105: 81: 80: 65: 62: 49: 48: 36: 33: 31: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2125: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106:Boodlesthecat 2103: 2096: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080:Boodlesthecat 2076: 2075:Matt Gonzalez 2072: 2068: 2064: 2063: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041:Boodlesthecat 2029: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1963: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1948: 1947:Cyberstalking 1944: 1939: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1823: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1777: 1767: 1763: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1712: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1692: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1628: 1622: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1535: 1532: 1531:Giles Bennett 1528: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1510:Giles Bennett 1506: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1488:Giles Bennett 1485: 1484:this template 1477: 1472: 1471: 1468: 1464: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358:Giles Bennett 1355: 1348: 1345: 1344:Giles Bennett 1341: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1279:Giles Bennett 1276: 1272: 1266: 1264: 1259: 1253: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1221: 1216: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1160: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111:68.116.254.61 1108: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1021: 1020:66.35.123.205 1015: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1005: 998: 995: 992: 989: 986: 983: 980: 977: 974: 973:nuke contribs 971: 968: 965: 962: 959: 956: 950: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 903: 899: 895: 890: 886: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 864: 861: 858: 854: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 840: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 816: 812: 811: 810: 809: 803: 799: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 780: 776: 772: 768: 767: 766: 765: 762: 759: 755: 751: 747: 739: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 702: 699: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 681: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 666: 665: 664: 663: 658: 657: 653: 652: 651: 650: 646: 642: 636: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 588: 584: 580: 573: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 540: 538: 534: 530: 529: 518: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 492: 488: 484: 479: 478: 477: 476: 473: 470: 466: 462: 461: 457: 454: 451: 448: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 433: 423: 422: 418: 414: 410: 402: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377:its talk page 370: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 341: 332: 323: 322: 319: 318: 308: 303: 302: 298: 294: 283: 282: 278: 274: 264: 263: 258: 252: 251: 241: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 195: 194:Action Action 190: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 163: 162: 158: 154: 149: 147: 144: 140: 130: 129: 125: 121: 117: 110: 104: 103: 100: 97: 93: 90: 86: 79: 75: 74: 73: 71: 61: 60: 57: 54: 46: 45: 44: 42: 30: 19: 2100: 2070: 2069:have allied 2066: 2061: 2057: 2038: 2024: 1974: 1954: 1951: 1940: 1936:my Talk page 1931: 1925:, who wrote 1920: 1917: 1880: 1879: 1863:76.87.47.110 1843: 1819: 1797: 1781: 1780: 1773: 1751: 1750: 1735: 1729: 1693: 1689: 1670: 1652: 1649: 1641: 1618: 1599: 1578: 1480: 1460: 1354:User:MegaMom 1351: 1331: 1315: 1302:User:MegaMom 1299: 1287: 1267: 1262: 1254: 1250: 1227: 1195: 1182: 1151: 1128: 1102: 1075: 1069: 1063: 1057: 1051: 1045: 1039: 1033: 1027: 1016: 993: 987: 981: 975: 969: 963: 957: 944: 912: 798:User:MegaMom 779:User:MegaMom 743: 738:User:MegaMom 700: 637: 632: 628: 598: 550:. Thank you. 541: 526: 524: 516: 429: 338: 336: 313: 311: 289: 270: 249: 244: 198: 180:58.88.55.173 169: 150: 136: 113: 84: 82: 67: 50: 38: 28: 1820:You tagged 1696:Imaginetweb 1105:—Preceding 1093:Will Beback 1007:Will Beback 567:Fixed with 497:acceptable. 411:. Thanks, 1876:Adminship? 1808:Od Mishehu 1776:Automation 1709:Invite to 1602:Kbthompson 1588:Od Mishehu 1442:Od Mishehu 1418:Od Mishehu 1394:Od Mishehu 1265:userpage? 1073:block user 1043:filter log 991:block user 985:filter log 949:Whenwith21 860:Od Mishehu 761:Od Mishehu 369:dated prod 273:BatterBean 170:Regarding 99:Od Mishehu 92:Od Mishehu 56:Od Mishehu 1932:SF Weekly 1827:SamuelRiv 1805:עוד מישהו 1667:Vandalism 1646:Userspace 1585:עוד מישהו 1439:עוד מישהו 1415:עוד מישהו 1391:עוד מישהו 1079:block log 997:block log 916:duck test 857:עוד מישהו 828:duck test 771:עוד מישהו 758:עוד מישהו 502:RedSpruce 436:RedSpruce 413:TallMagic 401:db-author 393:consensus 96:עוד מישהו 89:עוד מישהו 53:עוד מישהו 2071:yourself 2028:contribs 1914:Heads Up 1859:WP:CIVIL 1840:Civility 1742:Robotics 1389:issues. 1387:civility 1275:WP:Civil 1211:Barnstar 1157:Digg.com 1107:unsigned 1031:contribs 961:contribs 225:Chubbles 221:WP:MUSIC 202:Chubbles 166:Reminder 2102:...here 1732:related 1711:WP:ROBO 1505:WP:RFCU 1379:MegaMom 1334:at AN/I 1324:WP:RFCU 1271:WP:RFCU 924:MegaMom 894:MegaMom 802:WP:AN/I 746:MegaMom 680:WP:TALK 641:MegaMom 316:MBisanz 219:passes 120:MegaMom 1901:Rudget 1885:Rudget 1847:Calton 1457:My Rfa 1411:WP:SSP 1383:WP:SSP 1185:Calton 853:WP:SSP 832:Calton 754:WP:SSP 465:Calton 359:" and 293:JayJ47 176:WP:AGF 143:WP:CIV 139:WP:NPA 2095:Griot 1997:Griot 1977:Griot 1801:orfud 1673:KC109 1632:talk 1467:MONGO 1049:WHOIS 491:WP:EL 256:Chat 250:Pedro 16:< 2110:talk 2093:And 2084:talk 2045:talk 2022:talk 2001:talk 1981:talk 1867:talk 1851:Talk 1831:talk 1700:talk 1677:talk 1658:talk 1621:here 1619:See 1606:talk 1366:talk 1258:here 1202:talk 1189:Talk 1135:talk 1115:talk 1090:·:· 1067:http 1061:RBLs 1055:RDNS 1025:talk 1004:·:· 979:logs 955:talk 932:talk 898:talk 836:Talk 788:talk 645:talk 625:here 621:here 617:here 613:here 609:here 605:here 601:here 583:talk 577:. -- 556:talk 506:talk 469:Talk 440:talk 417:talk 297:talk 277:talk 229:talk 206:talk 184:talk 172:this 157:talk 141:and 124:talk 2067:you 1930:the 1623:.-- 1381:at 1096:·:· 1010:·:· 579:MCB 78:CSD 2112:) 2086:) 2047:) 2003:) 1983:) 1869:) 1849:| 1833:) 1702:) 1694:-- 1679:) 1660:) 1608:) 1562:gb 1368:) 1263:my 1236:╦╩ 1204:) 1187:| 1137:) 1117:) 1088:. 934:) 900:) 834:| 790:) 647:) 623:, 619:, 615:, 611:, 585:) 575:}} 569:{{ 558:) 508:) 467:| 463:-- 442:) 419:) 404:}} 398:{{ 372:}} 366:{{ 337:A 299:) 279:) 253:: 231:) 208:) 186:) 159:) 126:) 85:on 2108:( 2082:( 2043:( 2030:) 2025:· 2020:( 1999:( 1979:( 1905:. 1889:. 1865:( 1829:( 1698:( 1675:( 1656:( 1629:| 1604:( 1364:( 1304:. 1200:( 1133:( 1113:( 1081:) 1076:· 1070:· 1064:· 1058:· 1052:· 1046:· 1040:· 1034:· 1028:· 1023:( 999:) 994:· 988:· 982:· 976:· 970:· 964:· 958:· 953:( 930:( 896:( 817:. 786:( 643:( 607:, 603:, 581:( 554:( 504:( 493:. 438:( 415:( 295:( 275:( 227:( 204:( 182:( 155:( 122:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index